StrangeSox

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:23 PM) So I can murder some one if they buy a coke and its the last coke in the machine? That is a fight over resources. In fact you can claim every single murder is a fight over "something" whether it be money, love, etc. They are all "resources" if broadened to the nth degree. They are all "resources" and "justified killing" if you're completely redefining terms. Morals also exist without a legal structure. Your argument is that whatever is codified in law is defined as moral, and that's trivially wrong. The 10 commandments were some religious rules a society developed a few thousand years ago. It doesn't make them moral by definition. That's a pretty nice platitude. Also, you should notify all atheist philosophers that they should abandon their careers.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:20 PM) That's where I was headed with my 'protection' analogy. Yes, but MAD is fraught with problems and nuclear conflicts don't extrapolate down to small arms.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:19 PM) Since the invent of the atomic weapon, how many countries possessing nuclear weapons have been invaded after possessing the weapon? Im pretty sure the answer is 0. I'm tempted to make a really bad joke about the "Mexican invasion". Since the bomb is possessed primarily by some of the largest military powers on the planet, I don't think it means much.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:18 PM) Your idealistic one-liners are noble but uninformed and also useless to the discussion. Read my post again - and tell me what in it you disagree with. Tell me how a nuclear Iran is good for the world. Tell me how it isn't in our best interests to keep Iran away from nukes. How far do we go to prevent that? Unilateral military action?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:16 PM) The same reason people feel they need to own a gun. For protection! *ducks* Guys, please stop with the bad analogies.

Morals are not a quasi-legal structure. They are a philosophical development. And that's another bad murder analogy in this thread. The situation you describe is a fight over resources, analogous to a war in modern times. Murder is tautologically wrong because it is defined as unjustified killing.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:03 PM) You might trust your own country if it had a history of being far less aggressive and power-hungry, did not invent the bomb in question, did not detonate the bomb in question, did not threaten others with the bomb in question, etc. I think it would help if we all took our red, white and blue glasses off and tried to see this from other perspectives. A nuclear weapons-free world is ideal but probably not realistic. Given that, less bombs and, more importantly, less countries with bombs is better for everyone.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 03:02 PM) They certainly do have the authority to demand that. However, they have little to offer the U.S. to convince the U.S. that it would be in either the U.S.'s best interest or any other nation's best interest if that were to happen. As such, they can demand whatever they want, but there is no reason for the U.S. to acquiesce to that demand. Furthermore, if they were to base their behavior on U.S. compliance with that demand, it could easily hurt Iranian interests as well. Damnit, you're right, that wasn't worded properly. Of course, any nation has the right to ask, plead, request or demand another nation to do something. But they don't have the authority to force them to do it (outside of treaties/ UN agreements).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:58 PM) You're missing my point. All "rights" are completely made up by organizing bodies. "Murder" is a crime because people made it a crime. Having nuclear weapons isn't ok because groups of nations got together and said so. It's the same principle. Murder is a crime because it is codified as one in the law, but murder is morally wrong absent any government or legal structure. That's an important distinction imo. But, again, governments have very clear authority over their citizens. What authority does government A have over government B if government B has signed no treaties and is not part of the UN?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:55 PM) My point is that you're claimign some "inherent right" to be able to do what you want. This cleary isn't true, either individual actions, or nation actions. "There are rules man, this ain't Vietnam." No, that is not the claim. The claim is a lack of authority of one nation over the interests of another. Why doesn't Iran have the authority to demand that the US stop all nuclear development? We are hostile to them, we've invaded two countries in their backyard, we've supported revolution in their country and we're the only nation to have actually used the damned things.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:54 PM) Hobbesian to the core. The life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. Which is why man enters into a social contract with govt. Whereby ceding some of his rights to govt, for protection. I agree with the first part. As a society we agree to be bound by certain "social contracts" (haha used Rousseau and Hobbes in the same post). Whereby we give up certain rights that we may have had, for protection against others. The second part, I think is subjective. Its for the good of the "Western" or "Judea-Christian" world for Iran not to have nukes. Its bad for the "Muslim" world for Iran not to have nukes. There has to be some counter-balance to the power of the West. I dont want anyone to have nukes, but I think its naive to believe that will happen. Disagreed. It is bad for everyone for anyone to have nuclear weapons. Let's not lose the distinction that Iran is still claiming that they're only building research reactors and civilian power reactors and that they are not claiming to be developing a weapon. If they are meeting IAEA regulations and inspections, then we have no right to prevent them from doing using nuclear power for peaceful purposes (AFAIK).

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:50 PM) Again, this logic just basically goes like -"if i want to kill a man, i should be able to. its not fair that the government tells me that's wrong." No, it doesn't. National governments have clear authority over citizens. Outside of bodies like the UN or treaties, national governments do not have authority over other governments.

That is a terribly flawed analogy. Killing someone quite obviously harms another person. As a society, we have formed a government and given law-making powers to elected and non-elected representatives. They have pretty clear authority to make and enforce laws. Now, under the NPT, the rest of the world does have that right because Iran signed the treaty. But speaking in a broader sense, we (either the world or the US) do not have the right to dictate to Iran what it may or may not do outside of whatever treaties it has established. We may not like them building large military capabilities, but we don't have authority to stop them. We may not like them building nuclear facilities for civilian purposes, but we don't have authority to stop them beyond IAEA regulations and controls. Just as we have zero authority to stop Israel, North Korea, India or Pakistan from obtaining nuclear weapons, even though that would be in the best interests of the world as a whole. Of course, soxbadger's "might makes right" is how things work in reality.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:40 PM) Because it's OUR interests. Why wouldn't OUR interests be more important than others? Going with this idea and ignoring the NPT, what authority or right do we have to dictate to another country what they may or may not build? We can be angry about, disagree with it, pressure them not to do it, but I don't see the US as having an inherent right to dictate policy to the rest of the world.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:21 PM) And not against our interests, yes. Edit: I know nothing of the NPT, so maybe Balta is right. But I think if an ally of ours wanted a nuclear weapon we wouldn't make a big deal out of it. We would as long as they signed the NPT. For example, Israel has not signed and likely has several hundred weapons, but we have no authority. It's in everyone's best interests that there be zero nuclear weapons in the world. Even a small regional exchange between Pakistan and India could have very significant, very bad effects around the world.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:20 PM) My understanding is that reactors will create the fuel used in the production of nuclear weapons. You can use weapons-grade material in normal reactors, but normal reactors do not produce weapons-grade materials. You need separate enrichment capabilities. Also, you can't just sneak some nuclear fuel out of the reactor. The plant has to be shut down, and these refueling shutdowns are scheduled and typically last a month or two. They would likely need Russia to collude with them, and I don't see that happening.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:03 PM) Yeah because the US has no legitimate interest in this situation. Legitimate interest, sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean a legitimate authority to tell other countries what they may or may not build for (ostensibly) peaceful purposes. But the NPT and the IAEA complicate that matter and I won't pretend to know if the US really does have legitimate authority on this issue.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 02:07 PM) Yeah, well, we'll see I guess. Iran wasn't supposed to get a nuclear reactor, but nothing stopped them. I'll give it 2 years before they have a weapon. Probably 2.1 before they threaten to use it. How will this reactor allow them have a functional nuclear weapon in 2 years?

The best are hipster douchebags who get into hip-hop. Holy s*** talk about pretentious.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 01:29 PM) Not true. It also remains to be seen about how the fuel is being used and removed. If the Russians are loading the fuel in, and removing the fuel, it is not likely that Iran will get access to plutonium. Further, if fuel rods are being exchanged less often than every three or four months or so - the likelihood that this is being used for anything other than energy needs is also not likely, because any plutonium left would be too unstable to be properly weaponized. If Iran is following its agreement with Russia in getting Bahshehr online, the ability to weaponize fuel from the plant would seem to be pretty limited. FYI typical outage cycles are 18 to 24 months. Shutting the plant down every few months would be a financial disaster and a pretty clear indication that something was amiss.

Is the reactor they are building capable of producing weapons-grade nuclear material? It's not an easy process or a simple by-product of fission.

If I actually believed their sole intention was peaceful nuclear power, I wouldn't care.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 17, 2010 -> 08:20 AM) On your first graf, I think it simply makes more sense for the recipient/employee to take the risk than the company - and by the way, get greater rewards too, long run - because the recipient can wait 30 years for the payout. The company, in a pension situation, has to pay out every single year regardless of the markets. And this goes to your second graf. The "lost decade" is exactly the reason why it benefits both the company/agency AND the recipient/employee to have their money in the markets in a 401k. For the company, it means they can survive a down market, and still employ people. For the employee, it means a buying opportunity over the long haul. For my grandmother, it means moving in with my aunt and uncle.

Conservapedia reaches new depths of stupidity with their attack on General Relativity. I didn't know this kind of stupid was possible. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1930...servapedia.html and their list:

And the pensions are being stripped back more and more every year.